Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
On the substance of the proposal, aside from asking for authority to spend up to $700 billion and raising the debt-ceiling, as I already noted, there are few details to be had. How much the Treasury will pay on the dollar for the mortgage-related assets it will be acquiring from financial institutions is not mentioned at all. Will it be 60 cents on the dollar or 30 cents? The proposal doesn't say, and the implications for the rest of us are not considered. Will the executives at these institutions be subject to a reduction in compensation as a quid pro quo for the bailout of their institutions? Again, the proposal is silent and would leave all such details to the judgment of the Treasury. Will the institutions be required to change the very practices that got us into this mess? Again silence. And, of course, as you all know there are no provisions in the proposal for helping those who are facing foreclosure, etc.Thinking about the pending bailout in light of the New Deal precedent, I am reminded of the fact that the New Deal saved capitalism from itself and from the threat of socialism on the basis of a quid pro quo that granted the laboring citizenry a range of protections -- from social security to the rights of collective bargaining -- in exchange for labor peace and the preservation of the economic power of the industrialists and financiers. It seems to me that if the taxpayers are going to be asked now to pony up to the tune of a trillion or more dollars in order to "save the system as a whole," a system which is far from equitable in its operation and in the distribution of its fruits, those who have the most to lose (i.e., the winners in the present epoch of casino and finance capitalism) should be forced to accept analogously transformative redistributive changes in the socio-economic and political status quo which will serve to reverse the ever greater social and economic inequities that the latest stage of globalized capitalism has imposed upon the vast majority of Americans.
Further, it seems to me that if we permit the Congress to "fix the system" first, through the enactment of bailout legislation that will, in effect, be thoroughly regressive inasmuch as it will effectively redistribute national income from those with less to those with more (i.e. from the taxpayers to the plutocrats), our national leaders will never get to the imperative agenda of forming a new social compact which will shift power and resources from the top 10% to the bottom 90% of the populace. One can already hear the pundits proclaiming that the price of the bailout will make it nigh well impossible for the next President to achieve universal health care, improvement in education and infrastructure. One knows that the "fiscally responsible" crowd that brought about the collapse, and is now being bailed out, will insist that the next administration hold the line on so-called "discretionary" spending. In practice, this will surely mean that the glaring and growing socio-economic inequities will become even more pronounced in the course of the coming decade, unless the American people put their foot down right now and insist that the financial system can only be fixed as part of a total package that includes significant steps in the direction of much needed socio-economic redistribution.
It is unfortunate that this challenge falls to a Democratic Congress that is singularly lacking in spine. But it is fortunate that this crisis and opportunity has presented itself in an election year and on the eve of a presidential election. Bland nostrums and vague promises from either side should not be permitted to carry the day, however. And the Democratic Congress and the Obama camp must be made to understand that their power, and his election, hang in the balance.
In fact, it is extraordinarily irresponsible that the present administration in the twilight of its lame-duck term has proceeded with such temerity in seeking to mortgage the future of the American people and to impose a fait accompli upon the democratic electoral process that will serve to undercut future efforts to renegotiate the social compact, which is what the resolution of this crisis, and of the underlying disease which has produced this crisis, really calls for. Too much hangs in the balance for the American people to permit this attempt to hijack the American future in the name of the preservation of a profoundly sick status quo to succeed. The changes that have not yet been made to empower the middle class and poor to become full and equal beneficiaries of economic globalization are the moral and practical imperatives of the present hour, which the current crisis may permit us to tackle -- unless, under the pressure of the present financial hysteria and the Administration induced sense of panic, we are induced to "save the system" today andto put off tackling the structural challenges for another day. That "other day" has been too long in coming already. Following the herd right now will put that day off indefinitely while exacerbating existing socio-economic inequities.
Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. And while I support Obama, I think that in the face of the present crisis, and in the face of what is now the biggest issue in this election, he ought to fear that if he does not call for putting the brakes on the Treasury's very quick, very expensive, and very unfair fix of the financial system, and if he does not offer a comprehensive and concrete commitment to renegotiation of the social compact -- as the condition of the maintenance of the economic status quo, then Nader's more systemic approach to what ails us, and his more direct appeal to those Americans who believe that now is the time for a more thoroughgoing socio-economic transformation, may peel away just enough voters as to jeopardize Obama's election.
I do not want to see this happen, but I do think that Obama might jeopardize his election if his only response to the crisis is to cloak himself in "responsible bipartisanship" and to surround himself with Rubin, Tyson and Summers, who are all part of the team who brought the country to the present level of socio-economic inequity. While things are certainly far worse today, if memory serves the Clinton epoch was hardly one of great economic equality. I think Obama can dare to be bold in the current circumstances, and only by so doing is there any chance that he will be elected with a mandate to bring about the structural changes that are necessary. Otherwise, he may be elected but without a real policy mandate and without the clout or leverage to do what needs to be done.
IMHO
No comments:
Post a Comment